Milkshakes, and prepsters, and sheep oh my!!

The putting out system in Europe was when people gave their goods to others and then sold them when the others were done assembling them. For example, a country would send some ice cream, some chocolate chips, and glasses, for instance, to other countries to have it made into a delicious milkshake (yumm). It was then returned to them. Then they sold the "milkshake" to others for their enjoyment and to make a profit. The two places were mostly friends with some benefits on each side.  Putting out, however euphoric, was quite a risky business.

  

 

Putting out started as a private industry, making money on the side with only a few people involved. Then, because there were not enough results, the people expanded their business and put out to a lot more people which  made them a lot more money. Since the population explosion (due to lack of deaths), there were many people to provide for so the putting out system was the perfect way to please them!

*** Here is a chart (specifically of England) that shows the death and birth rates:

 

 



The putting out system also started because of enclosures (the fencing off of plots). People now had common land or pastures for sheep and oxen to graze which boosted the industries. For example, England was able to increase their wool industry because of this. Because wool doesn't grow on trees, landowners had to keep sheep to shave the wool off of.

Look how cute! :)                                                             (Pretend those lines are fences)

 

The enclosures helped with this. They, however, also had some disappointments. Land was becoming scarce so people found more industries which led to the putting out system.

 

Who participated in putting out you ask? Well, the lower class workers of all ages who needed money from the enclosure system used it mostly. Even old spinsters put out. Old, young, the system was universal in this aspect. The people were desperate to become like the wealthy, the aspiring Nantucket red panted class. However, many people conflicted due to this lust. Sometimes the ones putting out took away the advantages of pay from the workers who actually assembled it. People wanted to be wealthyThe wealthier class who "just stepped off the boat from Nantucket" (Maura) didn't need to put out to get money. They didn't need the money anyway (all the snobby prepsters!), but they could still put out at their leisure if they had the urge to.

 

I mean look at them! The wealthy (prepsters in our day and age) had the aura and looks of a financially well off person.



 

The putting out system however widely practiced, wasn't supported by all. The guilds were jealous of the people using the putting out system. The putter outers were getting everything, while the guilds were getting nothing. They were not as attractive to the customers. While the guilds did have luxurious products, they were expensive. In the putting out system, while there was a plethora of products being sold, they were cheap. There was not a high standard for the products.

 

So all in all from the land to the sea, from the bees to the birds, the putting out system, with all its benefits and controversies, was just your average run of the mill industry!  



What About the Common People?

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, 80% of Europeans made their livings as farmers. Unfortunately, ineffective techniques and poor conditions often caused crop failures which inevitably led to famines and poor economies.  

This is what I imagine the sad farmers looked like when their crops failed. 

The Agricultural Revolution modernized and commercialized farming in Europe with the help of new techniques. The techniques, such as crop rotation and selective farming, were products of the scientific revolution. 

Crop Rotation

By alternating growing different types of crops, soil exhaustion and fallow were lessened, improving crop yields. 

One of the most important developments of the Agricultural Revolution was the enclosure of the land, particularly in England. Some believed that in order to improve farming, farmers had to consolidate their lands into one fenced in area, rather than occupy several scattered fields.

Opinions differ as to whether or not this consolidation of the lands was beneficial to the common person. 

Pro-enclosure:

Supporters of enclosure (the wealthy) believed that this system would improve farming because the new techniques could be easily applied, making farming more efficient. The wealthy land owners benefited directly from this system because they produced  higher crop yields and could charge higher rents. After the enclosure acts, many poor farmers lost their own land, so they had to work the land of the wealthy. This gave the laborers relative stability because it provided secure jobs. This officially marked England's transition into a market-oriented agricultural society with the addition of a landless proletariat (working class). England was growing up and on its way to becoming capitalist (aww). 

Anti-enclosure:

Adversaries of enclosure believed that this system hindered social mobility. Because the wealthy tended to monopolize the land, they poor seemed to have few opportunities to improve economically. Obsessed with a making a profit, large land owners leased their land to middle-class farmers who relied on the proletariat to work the land. Laborers worked long hours and became entirely dependent on cash wages.  

Katie Coyne's Opinion:

I think that, while it seemed as though the lower class had lost its social mobility, life after enclosure was more stable for everyone. Previously, people essentially shared the land (*cough* communism) and farmed rather haphazardly. Their dated techniques provided inconsistent crop yields which led to famines and distress. With the help of the newer techniques and the enclosure, farming became much more lucrative and successful--not to mention famines became less common. While many did not own land themselves, they had stable jobs working the land. I believe that a certain degree of economic stability can eventually lead to social mobility. Once one has a relatively stable job, he can attempt to move up economically. For this reason, I think that, theoretically, the lower and middle classes should have had more social mobility after enclosure than before.  

Imperialism, Imperialism, Imperialism

Our knowledge of imperialism began in freshman year. When the explorers went… well exploring, they did so for the reasons of Gold, God, and Glory. We were told time and time again about these pioneers, their explorations, and the many treasures they discovered. What we had yet to realize was that these men were imperialists in every sense of the word. Imperialism is the belief in empire-building, in order to gain more land for the country. Imperialism is the goals of Gold, God, and Glory put into practice.

 

The Early 16th Century vs.  The 18th Century

Remember Jamestown and the settlement at Roanoke? Yeah, that’s kind of what’s going on here. England and Spain had the same goal in mind, expansion of the crown and the monarchy. So they set out to discover new land and claim it for their country [Because Land = Power = Money (Thanks Katie)] But… more money equals more problems…

 

Thanks for the graph Biggie.

It’s like the French and Indian war all over again. (Refresher- the French and the Indians weren’t fighting against each other… I’m still not over the name) ANYWAY. A country expands and annoys some people. Columbus annoyed the “Indians”, just like the colonists annoyed the Native Americans after Thanksgiving…

 

Basically...

 

 

So what is going on now is not “Round One” of imperialism, we've seen it many times before. And the one thing that binds every part of imperialism is….

 

Wait for it…

 

MONEY!  

(Shocking, I know.)

 

Specifically mercantilism, as can be observed in the Triangle Trade Route.

 

I'd reccomend putting this on mute and then watching it.

 

 

Enlightened Absolutist or Benevolent Dictator?

The Enlightenment brought to light many great philosophers who affected people intellectually and culturally. They affected people of all classes; including the leaders of countries. The period of Enlightenment brought a generation of enlightened absolutists. What is an enlightened absolutist? An enlightened absolutist is a leader who embraced the ideas of Enlightenment such as religious toleration, the right to hold private property, and more studies into the sciences and education. Also, more freedom of the press and speech was given to the population.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/the-enlightenment-1.jpg

In this chapter we focused upon three countries and rulers who exemplified enlightened absolutism: Prussia, Russia, and Austria. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Friedrich_Zweite_Alt.jpg

Frederick (II) the Great came to power in Prussia in 1740. The first thing Frederick accomplished was invade and conquer the German lands of the Habsburgs, Silesia. With this step Frederick doubled the population of Prussia. Frederick was able to keep this land with the help of Peter III during the 7 Years' War. Frederick brought Enlightenment to the people as a way to strengthen his state. He allowed his subjects the freedom of philosophical and religious tolerance (except Judaism, of course). He improved schools and allowed them to publish their findings in order to continue to educate people. In his government, Frederick created a more honest legal system and abolished the torturing of prisoners. Next Frederick created the reconstruction of agriculture after the 7 Years' War. Though Frederick did not like the idea of serfdom, he needed to use it to support his country.
Frederick truly differed from past rulers when he "justified monarchy in terms of practical results and said nothing of the divine right of kings." This embodies the enlightened belief of the practical use of knowledge to govern opposed to the blind faith of a divine ruler to govern.

http://www.nndb.com/people/575/000078341/catherine-the-great-1-sized.jpg

Catherine the Great of Russia came to power in 1762 after overthrowing her husband Peter III. Catherine brought the Enlightened period to backward Russia by "westernization". In this process Catherine brought architects and sculptors to Russia from Western Europe. Her next step was a domestic reform where she improved education, strengthen local government, and abolished torture(very similar to Frederick the Great). She allowed a little religious toleration. She also condemned the idea of serfdom but because of a peasant rebellion lead by Emelian Pugachev, Catherine needed the help of the nobility to control the peasants.

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/T/Maria-Theresa-9398965-1-402.jpg

Maria Theresa came to power in Austria in 1740. The War of the Austrian Succession included the loss of Silesia to Prussia leading to reforms. She believed that reforms were the path to a stronger state. Maria first attacked the power of the papacy in politics by limiting it. Next she improved her government by making a more centralized bureaucracy and created a new tax system where even the nobles were taxed. Maria truly differed from other rulers of her time by reducing the power of lords over serfs. Her son, Joseph II gave religious tolerance and rights to Protestants and Jews. Following in his mothers path, Joseph II abolished serfdom in Austria in 1781 and decreed that all peasant labor obligations be converted into cash payments. Sadly these measures were rejected by nobility and the peasants causing an uproar after Joseph's untimely death. His brother Leopold II had to demolish Joseph's edicts.

Another name for an enlightened absolutist is a benevolent dictator. But are they the same thing? An enlightened absolutist is someone who uses the ideas of the enlightenment to better their government and kingdom while a benevolent dictator is someone who helps their populace with the intent to make their life better. I believe that the enlightened absolutists were not the same as benevolent dictators. The rulers of Prussia, Russia, and Austria wanted to improve their country in every way but knew in order to do so they needed to adapt to the times and use the technique of knowledge to efficiently run a kingdom. They did not have the intent of improving the lives of the people with their inability to abolish the oppressive serfdom. In the end, many of the absolutists were able to improve their countries with intelligence, hard work, and enlightenment.

I Kant Understand This

Today in class we reviewed philosophy during the Enlightenment, specifically focusing on Kant and Rousseau, which was rather confusing. We started off by discussing some Kant.

Pictured: Kant

He gave us a pretty nice definition of what is Enlightenment, namely that it was "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity."

Pictured: Not Kant 

 Now, the hard part comes, defining Kant's definition! Basically, to Kant, immaturity wasn't making dirty jokes all the time, rather it was not using your head and  not thinking independently.  Kant believed (with just reasons) that many people were "immature" in this manner and simply were content with being ignorant.

This show justifies Kant's argument

For Kant the main reason the majority of people were not enlightened was simply because they were too lazy to improve themselves or too afraid to step outside their boundaries. It should also be noted he pretty much thought all women were unenlightened because in this time it was not acceptable for them to think very independently. However, Kant believed that the public could gradually become enlightened. He said that this could be accomplished by the leadership of the few enlightened guardians of thought. In other words he meant that he believed in an enlightened ruler who would then seek to enlighten his subjects. He did not believe that it could work the other way around, that the enlightened subjects make the rulers enlightened. To Kant this would lead to conflict in which the rulers (or guardians) would become even more prejudiced and less reasonable in reaction to the uprising. 

Kant also on clarified that enlightenment only really needed the freedom of the public use of reason, and that the freedom of the private use of reason did not matter as much. Private use of reason means basically whether you adhere to the duties of your job. If you are for example, a soldier, Kant would still expect you to obey orders, as it is your job. In this aspect, he believed a person could be restricted to follow what was needed of them by society. However, Kant said that you should still be able to discuss your thoughts freely in the public and employ your reason. He mainly advocated therefore for what we would know as the freedom of the press.

Pictured: Not Kant, Actually Rousseau

We also briefly talked about Rousseau. Rousseau was another Enlightenment era philosopher, but he differed from Kant in a few ways. Like Kant, Rousseau believed that people should have individual freedom of expression of thought.  One was that he had a somewhat more positive view on the basic nature of humanity. He also did not trust in rationalism as much. To him, because humanity was already good, trying to "civilize" someone could actually be hurtful to their freedom. 

Rousseau also went beyond just wanting to have an enlightened ruler. Rousseau believed that a ruler did not derive their right to rule from force, God or nature but rather sovereignty should lie in common interests of the populace, known as general will. This idea of the general will led to the belief in popular sovereignty, wherein the people ruled themselves. These ideas would become incredibly influential.

Philosophes, Fathers, and Johnny Appleseed

Think of the scientific revolution as the first apple tree that John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) ever planted. The apple was a fruit that Americans had not been exposed to before. Just as Johnny Appleseed introduced the apple tree to large areas of the United States, the scientific revolution introduced the world to new ideas.

-Tree = Scientific Revolution
-Scientific Revolution produces new ideas
-New ideas = apples

The scientific revolution was the single most important factor in the creation of the new views brought about during the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Although the "fresh" ideas (fresh apples lol) of the time were diverse and often conflicting, three central concepts stand at the core in the apple of Enlightenment thinking.

Society split between 3 different groups, groups that I like to call the "PPP" or the P times 3 because it rhymes. (People, Public, Philosophes) By 1775, most of Western Europe's educated elite had embraced the new ideas of the Enlightenment. These educated and enlightened people were simply referred to as "the public." In turn, there was the great majority of the population, or the common people, who were simply referred to as "the people." (Or the hoi polloi for Maria) The philosophes, or simply the intellectuals, were the ones in charge of making Enlightenment thought accessible to this wide range of people. However, these philosophe dudes were very demeaning and almost paternalistic over their poor audiences. They honestly believed that they "were bringing the light of knowledge to their ignorant fellow creatures...and that the great majority of the common people were doomed because they lacked the money and the leisure to look beyond their bitter struggle with poverty." Basically, I think that these philosophes were very optimistic of themselves, yet very pessimistic of human nature. In order for society to progress in a positive direction (one of the 3 parts of the apple), the intellectuals must commit themselves to educating and informing the ignorant masses. Of course though, it was for their own good and for the good of society...There were no benefits for the fatherly philosophes at all! (sarcasm). 

A perfect example of a paternalistic, pessimistic philosophe is Francois Marie Arouet, AKA Voltaire. Before I continue.. I digress...

Not only did Voltaire believe that human beings are rarely worthy to govern themselves, but he also rejected the idea of social and economic equality. Servants would always be lesser than their masters, there was no changing that. Voltaire's belief in the unequal nature of humans severely clashed with Church doctrine. Christ's message of "loving God and your neighbor as yourself" would not fly according to Voltaire. 

Therefore, I think these philosophes had good intentions by wanting to improve and to advance society with the new ideas of the Enlightenment. However, they did not approach the situation in the correct manner. As usual, the common people didn't really matter and the elite was better than everyone else, the usual. To be completely honest though, I don't understand why Voltaire thought he was the man. He did have a pretty girly name after all... how embarrassing. 

Church, causes, and potato chips

 

The scientific revolution had 3 main causes:
1) Universities: the course of philosophy, newly developed, encouraged a new way of thinking. It was a minor branch of science but it was the instigator of the idea of science
2) Math: humanists studied the classics and with it came math. People back then wanted to solve the problems that arose in ancient times. By solving these problems, they began the progression of science.
3) Navigation: it was very difficult to find the longitude during this time. Science was needed to make such an instrument and help with the efficiency of ships.
            *** A chronometer(left) is the instrument that measures longitude, not a sextant (sorry Maria!).  That however measures the latitude.
                    VS.



Eventually, the scientific revolution resulted in empiricism and Cartesian dualism.

•        Empiricism (we like this concept!)
• Since we didn't have a concrete definition of this in class (ironic isn't is) here is what Bing's dictionary has to say:
1. application of observation and experiment: the application of observation and experiment, and not theory, in determining something
2. philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses

Using the 5 senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, hear, in case you need a reminder) scientists at this time had concrete understanding of life. For example, since we are not sciency people, I'll use food as my example.
1) Sight- One can see that potato chips can be grooved, thin, or kettle
2) Touch- One can feel the rough, fried texture
3) Smell- One can smell the potato chips...they smell like potatoes
4) Hear- One can hear the crunching of the potato chips when others eat them
5) Taste- One can taste the saltiness

Hungry yet?

Now back to science. So as you can see, at this time is was very easy to believe in the things we can physically come in contact with. The experience of eating potato chips is just as real as Locke's tabula rasa belief. Everyone writes his/her life with the experiences. If one chooses to make his or her life about potato chips so be it. It is the things in our life, the things we experience that mold us.


Another theory, unlike empiricism, is the Cartesian dualism (we don't like this one)
It is made up of two concept: inductive and deductive reasoning.

• Inductive: Johnny doesn't wear a wedding ring, he is single
• Deductive: Johnny is a bachelor, all bachelors are single, Johnny is single

This concept relates to the scientific method as well. The hypothesis is inductive (inferred) while the conclusion is deductive (based on facts).



















Finally, all this concrete evidence lead to the questioning of the church. The church was semi ok with the idea of science in the beginning because it didn't pose much of a threat. However, as time went on, the church and humanity was no longer the center of the world and physical experiments were proving some of the church's beliefs wrong. Since the ways of the church were questioned, the church leaders feared that their other doctrines would be questioned. It was a challenge of authority between scientists and the religious leaders at this point. It was a battle they couldn't afford to lose.

 

To sum this all up, here is a video: